Sunday Morning

I was just thinking about 2 directors I really like, Paul thomas Anderson & Quentin Tarantino recently and how similiar they both are. But not so much in terms of content, but mostly in how they have patterned their careers and how heavily influenced they are by other great films and directors.

For example they each directed 4 films.

P.T's debut was the small independent film hard eight.
Quentin's was the small, reservoir dogs.

Paul's second was a much larger scale almost epic, boogie nights.
Quentin's 2nd, Pulp fiction, was also much larger in scale and almost epic like.

P.T.'s 3rd was a large yet intimate and personal drama, magnolia.
Quentin's third was also a large yet intimate and much more personal than usual film, jackie brown.

Of course their #4 films couldn't be any more different from each other, but they both show the markings of heavy influences.

For paul it was french directors like tati and truffaut.
For Quentin, well, you know, a slew of things.

They both make bold stylistic choices, tend to use older, almost forgotten actors while capitalizing on (and putting to good use) today's popular actors.

So yeah, they are film geeks first and filmmakers second. Not many mainstream and popular directors out there that are nowadays.

If I had to compare and say who was better. I would give the edge to Paul. His films don't seem to be buried under their influences as much as quentin's are.
Plus I can say I love all 4 of paul's films.
I was dissapointed in volume 1 of kill bill (and that's for the 1st time in any of quentins work) Hopefully volume 2 will edge him back in.

Anyone else notice any other similarities between the two cats?

Jackskeleton

You might aswell throw Robert Rodriguez on that list.

He grew out of the indie scene with QT.

Buford T Pusser

both are faves of mine. both use some actors more than once. both like retro music on the soundtracks.

lesterlong

Yeah I would throw in Robert Rodriquez if he had actually made a decent film other than Desperado. PTA and QT are two of my favorite directors. Not only do they have a gift of writing great stories but can also direct magnificently. I would give the edge too PTA as well because Punch Drunk Love is the greatest movie of the decade so far. I also give the nod PTA because as a person he seems a lot more down to earth and doesn't feel the need to cast himself into every movie he directs. Both very talented directors but I have to give it to PTA.

Jackskeleton

Well we all know how I felt about PDL..

Though I will give you that QT loves to stroke his ego. As for Rodriguez, Hey. he came from the same roots as QT and both worked together in 4 rooms. So not all his films are filled with gore. Spy kids is still a pretty fun film. I argue that PDL could have been a great film if it actually had a plot and was longer to flash out more characters.

blindrocket

I haven't seen Hard 8, really liked Boognie Nights, disliked magnolia, and haven't seen PDL.

I really like Reservoir Dogs, Pulp Fiction, and Kill Bill vol. 1, but have not seen Jackie Brown.

I can tell the similiarities that you implied, I think you have a valid point.

As for who I like better, it's gotta be Tarantino. (IMO)

Hopefully they both don't mind doing a #5. (not counting KB#2 as QT's #5)

CitizenKaneRBud

Good points.. I think a difference would be that PTA's films seem to be more personal and emotionally involved than QT's. QT's films seem to be self-aware (not in a bad way), and they are great, but not really pondering.. Jackie Brown would be an exception, although it's not a script from his mind. Both are great assets to Hollywood right now, pushing its' boundaries.

scroll2b

The script is from his mind, the novel isn't. It's called an adaptation. The novelist sure as hell didn't put that translation on the screen, Tarantino did.

Personally, I have also sensed their similarities, though I think PTA is more unlikable, persona-wise. I thought Hard Eight, or Sidney as he calls it, was largely forgettable. That's not the case at all with Reservoir Dogs, which was a triumph of a director's first film.

I also like Boogie Nights and Magnolia, but prefer to watch the former more. However, Boogie Nights is a hell of a lot less-quotable for me than Pulp Fiction. And only in the last third of that film does it get real juicy for me, mainly because of the violence and suspense employed, which Pulp Fiction has through out.

Now, a lot of people say Jackie Brown is underrated. Well, it deserves to be. If this came from, say, Kevin Smith, I think we'd all be equally blown away, since he hasn't done much since Chasing Amy. Back to Brown - I just don't feel it to be as memorable or visceral as the director's earlier work.

Now, I just saw Kill Bill, and I must say that film's got (what I like to call) "movie-juice" galore!! I mean, the adrenaline is just pumping in that film. The style, the structure, the violence, the poetry, the references, a little of the dialogue. I mean, who else loved that "wiggle your big toe" bit??? It's pure genius.

Now, I'm afraid of seeing Punch Drunk Love. Something about the whole thing just doesn't excite me. In fact, I've seen the first five minutes, and can't say that I was pleased. I know, I need to see the whole thing first, but it just doesn't feel all that geared up for the right reasons. Whatever. Whom do I prefer? I think it's clear, but I do respect them both very much. Too bad others aren't as successful or as geeky.


And by the way - I don't think I've memorized music to a movie this fast. Ever. KILL BILL all the way!!

SpinnerX

You should read Tarantino's interview in the new Rolling Stone and you might change your mind. I used to be able to see past his embarrassing/pathetic geekiness, but he's elevated himself to a new level of obnoxiousness with this interview. The guy's always been an immature nerd, which is not news, but his comments on 9/11 reveal what a complete idiot he really is. I expect his retarded "Revenge of the Nerds" comments on women ("I really don't think of any woman right now who's unattainable"), but I wasn't expecting him to be so completely souless when asked about how 9/11 affected him:

"9/11 didn't affect me, because there's, like, a Hong Kong movie that came out called Purple Storm and it's fantastic, a great action movie. And they work in a whole big thing in the plot that they blow up a giant skyscraper. It was done before 9/11, but the shot almost is a semi-duplicate of 9/11. I actually enjoyed inviting people over to watch the movie and not telling them about it. I shocked the shit out of them. But, again, I was almost thrilled by that naughty aspect of it. It made it all the more exciting."

Corvin

...well, at least he makes good movies.

scroll2b

I don't buy that quote....... Not at all.

Inverse

Hey now, let's not get into a fight about PTA, QT and their personalities. I think we can all be civilized and agree that in public they *both* come of as arrogant jerks.

As a moviemaker, I'd have to give the edge to PTA personally. Even though I didn't much like Punch Drunk Love, it still felt like a movie from a director who's moving forward. I kinda get the feeling that Kill Bill is QT's retreat back into the video-store womb.

SpinnerX

What do you mean you don't buy it? You don't think he said that? The issue of Rolling Stone is on the stands right now, so you can check it out for yourself.

Jackskeleton

I'll have to give the edge to the most welcomed films to QT. PT really relies on the indie watchers. QT's got that way to bring in the hip factor from older items and pump some fresh blood into it. Look at john trovolta's come back. Loo at how Sam Jackson was viewed after pulp fiction. Look at Res Dogs. the whole suit look. QT taps into the roots, in Kill bill he uses Hong Kong films and a various amount of old school fun mixed in to please the audiance and get his story out. the end result lets everyone enjoy it.

PT loves to make his films long and filled with character studies. This doesn't always factor in well with the general public. sometimes it hits and sometimes it's a major miss.

lesterlong

True, but the general public sucks. So, PT wins!

Crocker Jarmen

I don't see how you can compare how Tarantino and Anderson come across personally, since Tarantino is pretty much a star on his own and Anderson is mostly in the background. Anderson has never appeared in his films, I don't see him on talk shows, I don't think he's ever hosted Saturday Night Live.

Although I do agree that Anderson is quite the cocky bastard. I loved the reaction shot of him when he lost the Oscar for Boogie Nights (or maybe it was Magnolia). He looked like he was gonna cry and Fioanna Apple was patting his hand soothingly.

There's this hilarious exchange between Anderson and William H. Macy in that documentary on the Magnolia disc. Anderson is going on about all the stuff he did on the movie, he's showing Macy the poster and saying how he did that you too.

"Oh," Macy says, really dryly. "You mean you thought it up and then someone drew it."
"Yeah!" Anderson says and walks off.
After a moment, Macy turns to the camera and says, "Y'know, he developed the film too. Yeah, he didn't like the job the lab was doing so he set up a processor in his bathroom."

scroll2b

Exactly!! I remember him being annoyed at someone winning at the Oscars, but it could've been when Roberto Benigni won, or something....... can't quite remember.... And, he is rather a prick, isn't he? Why didn't he do a commentary for Magnolia? He was so pumped to do one for Boogie Nights, and then he wants the film to speak for itself with Magnolia? Well, excuse me! HA!

BTW, when did Tarantino host SNL? I'd love a copy of that.....!

Pants

Simply put: Tarantino is Godard and Anderson is Truffaut.

I think PDL biggest influence is Altman.

SpinnerX

I think they both like to mask the influences that they come closest to imitating. PT Anderson is clearly a huge Altman fan, and that's the influence that his movies most resemble, but he loves to name-drop everyone except Altman. Tarantino is the same way. Like when he kept insisting that RESERVOIR DOGS was inspired by Kubrick, he was really just trying to cover the fact that it was inspired by Ringo Lam. Now with KILL BILL, he's talking about the "giallo scene" (Fangoria interview), when it's pretty obvious that his "giallo scene" is lifted from DePalma's DRESSED TO KILL, right down to the split screen. They both do this all the time.

Crocker Jarmen

Actually, I don't have the impression that Anderson is a prick. While he clearly has a big head, at least he seems good natured about it for the most part. And considering what he's accomplished by the time he was thirty, perhaps a lot of that attitude is deserved.

I don't see what doing or not doing a commentary for Magnolia has to with it. Especially since it was replaced by a documentary that quite frankly made Anderson look a little silly in a few places.

shill66

An interesting comparison. Although I think Anderson's films are excellent and Tarantino's are excrement.