I own nearly everything Tarantino has been involved in (except a few where he was only peripherally involved, ala Sin City). I'll own one Cronenberg flick when I decide to pick up The Fly on DVD. He's not that great, IMHO.

I'm not a big fan of either, but I like Tarantino more. I don't own a single Cronenberg film, though I'm really interested in seen History of Violence.

1) This is a response to an unknown question. Without including the question in the article (and who knows why they didn't), it's hard to get a real understanding of Cronenberg's reply.

2) I don't really see how you can characterize Cronenberg's reply as "slagging". Seems like an intelligent, and correct, evaluation of Tarantino's style. I don't see it as an attack at all.

3) Cronenberg definitely does have a characteristic style. And considering that he has worked with the same crew for most of his career (cinematographer, wardrobe designer, set designer, composer) it would be difficult to NOT have a consistent style, even intentionally.

Certainly. I would think almost every competent director is able to put in his or her own artistic touch to their films. Its just that with Tarantino his style is much more obvious and has been the subject of open discussions and debate among cineastes and pimply faced teens alike.

Just because someone says one is "better" than the other doesn't make it so or even necessary. Why Cronenberg wants this to become a contest by reducing or belittling Tarantino is the question. Anyone can name other directors that are supposedly more talented than Cronenberg but should that be the point? Does that mean it should diminish Cronenberg's talent or his unique vision?

Tarantino has had a very broad and positive cultural impact for many popular, indie, retro, and foreign films. A true tastemaker. More than any other director in recent memory perhaps save Scorsese.

Agree with the general consensus but having recently seen HoV i'd say it's not the best example to illustrate a point IMO given how typically 'Un-Cronenberg' like it felt to me...i found the whole thing to be 'bland' quite honestly and i'd have to say i'd be prepared to rewatch most Tarantino films in preference to having to watch this again.

That is just about the best summation of QT's films that I've ever heard / read.

I'm mixed. I agree with Cronenberg, but I love Tarantino's films. They acually feel very Kubrick to me, oddly enough.
The only Cronenberg film I've seen is Crash, and that was enough to make me never want to see anything by him again. Just horrible.

While I agree that a director does bring his touch to any material, Tarantino's films are basically just collages of classic cult films. They do have his own characteristic style, which I do kind of like, but he's not as original as Cronenberg. Whether or are not you like Cronenberg's films, you have to acknowledge that they're mostly not cliched material.

Does the possible lack of debate among teenagers negate the existence of strong directorial signatures? I'd sure hope not. Cronenberg's style is obvious enough to anyone willing to apply very minimal thought to his films; running threads of visual and plot elements are right under the viewer's noses (or, perhaps more accurately, a few feet from the ends of their noses). To the extent that his style is still not obvious enough for some people, that is not necessarily a fault. Overly obvious style has its own set of drawbacks, as Cronenberg seems to discuss. I think Cronenberg's style has been one that has, to one extent or another, run the razor's edge between style and content. And said style has been the subject of much debate by the public at large (see: debates regarding the style of the films and their relation to the funding provided by the Canadian governmental) and of serious scholarly discourse back when Tarantino was still in junior high.

Of course, since the interview as published doesn't show the questions asked, it's unclear just how baited Cronenberg was into offering his opinion on and a personal comparison with Tarantino. In any case, being scandalized by the idea that an artist has dared to criticize another artist rings a bit hollow.

Yeah, and Oprah gets a lot of people to buy a lot of different books, too. What's her authorial style?

DJ

Just out of curiosity, I just went to IMDB to check on Cronenbergs' films, to see what I've seen, and what I'd thought of them.
Are you people nuts, or what?!?! The Brood? Scanners? The Fly? Naked Lunch? Crash? Dead Ringers? The Dead Zone?
Cronenberg is interesting, but he's FAAAAAARRRRR from the artiste Tarantino has proven himself to be, through the re-watchability of his films, alone.
Fuck the popularity issue, Tarantinos' films are simply better.

Why, by god, you're right. Your opinion on the rewatchability and overall quality of films does mean that people who hold differing opinions are mentally ill. How dare Cronenberg criticize the style of another director when his films are, according to zombiezilla, not as good by FAAAAAARRRRR ? Off I go to commit myself! (And I hope that nut Cronenberg is now convinced to do the same.)

DJ

The films you listed are all classics in my eyes. I don't get your point with this message, save to announce to all that you don't know a lot about Cronenberg.

I think they are both great directors, and very, very different. Comparing them doesn't make much sense. I wish we had the full context of that article.

I agree, Tarantinos is the better artiste.

What he said.

Completely missed my point. Tarantino's movie unlike Cronenberg's brought discussions about film theory into the mainstream. I wasn't saying Cronenberg lacked a personal style. With Tarantino, he made it a point to bring that type of discussion into his films. People suddenly learned about Godard, Kurosawa, Peckinpah, Scorsese, and Kubrick among a slew of other influences he drew upon. And, please Cronenberg has yet to achieve the status of an auteur the level of a Scorsese or Kubrick so his words don't have that type of influence on me. Even if he was I'm not about to deny my own preferences. You're debating a matter of taste. Tarantino isn't your taste. He mixes high culture and low culture into a new type of film language. One that some can't appreciate. No big deal. Move on.

And personally, I dont' think Tarantino cares whether people consider his films to be "ART" or just cheap entertainment. He likes both genres so to him I think they could be either.

I personally would have never thought to compare Cronenberg and Tarantino. I just don't see the parallels except for maybe his latest film "A History of Violence". Why does it ring hollow? This is what fans of directors do. Come to their defense. It doesn't mean its an either or proposition either. I'm not about to attack Cronenberg's movies. I happen to like many of his movies.



The difference is Tarantino actually makes movies. He also goes on camera and talks about the influences he's had into making his movies. (Which spurred other young filmakers to discover new films that they may have never seen) Its as if Oprah wrote a book and told people that her work was heavily influenced by Alice Walker, Carson McCullers, and Harper Lee. That she learned many of the tricks writers use from these great authors. What's wrong with that?
Tarantino was just telling people that it can help to be a student of the Great (and not so Great) in order to make a movie.

There's a joy and energy to Tarantino's movies. His enthusiasm for the medium is infectious and thats why he is so successful with so many people. When Reservoir Dogs came out more than just a few people said, "Damn. Now thats the kind of movie I wanted to make."

But "your point" was completely unrelated to the obvious point of my post: whether Cronenberg has a strong signature directorial style. Instead, you quoted my post, which was about whether or not Cronenberg has signature stylistic elements, and you then posted something irrelevant in response. Well, at least I've got it figured out now.

And, FWIW, if your implication is that Cronenberg has not actually brought discussions about film theory into the mainstream, I respectfully submit that you know very little about the history of Cronenberg's films and their reception and reaction, especially in his native country. I make this point only because it is just too irresistible to let slip. It still has nothing to do with the post of mine to which you were allegedly responding.

Although you phrase this rather rudely, I have no clue what you're what I have said to which you are referring here. Did I tell you that Cronenberg's words should have some special influence on you?

I am? When did I do that? I thought I was discussing the issue of whether Cronenberg has a signature style. I didn't realize you found secret messages I was hiding without even consciously knowing I was doing so.

He isn't? Where did I say this? What in the world do you remotely know about me that leads you to draw this conclusion? Are you even reading my posts? Be honest now. I have a strong feeling that while you're quoting my posts, your responses are actually just directed towards some inner dialogue you're having with yourself about how great Tarantino is and how much you need to reassure yourself of that fact. There's no sense for me to try to respond to the remainder of this section of your post, as I don't see it as having any relation to anything I've said.

It rings hollow because directors are not such nice, shelterd individuals that they don't comment upon one another (negatively, or otherwise). To accuse Cronenberg of wanting a "contest," "reducing," and "belittling" simply because he offered an opinion in response to a question that has yet to be disclosed to any of us is indeed a bit much. If going off on half-assed information and accusing others of engaging in rude conduct is what fans of directors "do," then please count me out as a fan of any director. I won't trade my own sense of personal integrity in the way I form opinions on the statements of others in for some kind of fanboy badge. So, great, you're a Tarantino fan. As a result, you've now, for example, trashed Cronenberg for doing something you have no proof he actually did (i.e., the "contest" you accuse him of wanting may not be of his own design - we don't know the question he was answering), you've accused me of taking various and sundry wildly incorrect position, and you've posted what amounts to little more than spam honoring Tarantino. So, great, you're a fan. You're not particularly effective in having a coherent discussion on a message board, but you sure are a great big fan.

Good to know. Once again, the post of mine which you quoted and to which you responded centered on the issue of whether Cronenberg has a signature directorial style. Telling me he's a "tastemaker," besides being wholly unimpressive in general, is simply irrelevant to my post. I inquired into your reasons for noting this via analogy to Oprah in order to figure out what the connection was between my post and your response. Now, the reason is clear: there was none. You're just a fan of a certain director, and that's apparently what fans of directors "do": assert random nice things about that director, no matter the relevancy of those nice things to the post to which you are allegedly replying. Who is it, exactly, that wants a contest? All I see is you coming into a thread and, without regard for its relevancy, randomly describing ways in which Tarantino is awesome and Cronenberg is not.

The other thing that fans of directors apparently "do" is that, when they are challenged regarding the baseless assertions they make about other directors (that is, those directors concerning which such fans do not "do" things), they simply avoid having to face the validity of their own assertions and instead deflect the issue altogether with a bunch of nice things about their favored director.

Again, the rest of your post is completely unrelated to anything I put forth in the post of mine to which you allegedly responded. As such, I respectfully decline to engage in a debate over such platitudes as whether Tarantino brings "joy." I'm sure we can also agree, without having to debate it, that Tarantino's films are also "cool," "influential," "very movie-like" and "really cool (and I mean it this time)."

I will be glad, on the other hand, to actually engage in a discussion with you on the topic about which I was posting (and to which you were allegedly, but not actually, replying) before you tried ham-fistedly to change the topic: whether Cronenberg has a strong signature look and feel to his films. I am not holding my breath. Feel free to instead tell me again how great Tarantino is and, despite the fact that you quite obviously know nothing about my tastes, how much I don't like Tarantino.

DJ

Some quotes from the Village Voice:

http://villagevoice.com/film/0538,flim1,67990,20.html

"Sui generis and fiercely coherent, Cronenberg's body of work is unrivaled in modern movies as an argument for the auteur theory."

"David Cronenberg may be the best-reviewed filmmaker in the Village Voice's history."

djtoell slags IanH's post! rotfl

Crash still sucked!

Cronenberg may have a strong signature style (which I'm not saying he does or not). My point is that it just hasn't become as apparent to mainstream audiences as Tarantino's.

Canada? Hey, its nice to know you guys like to watch movies up there. But sorry, no I'm not interested in an education of what Canadians think of Cronenberg or Tarantino. Here in the U.S. discussions of Cronenberg's stylistic elements just doesn't seem to be as common as Tarantino's. Perhaps its because Cronenberg is Canadian and Tarantino is "one of our own". Perhaps its because Tarantino is simply more popular here and I'm guessing most everywhere because Tarantino's movies are simply more entertaining to more people.

Rude. Perhaps. I'm saying Cronenberg's opinons don't matter much to me esp. when I happen to think he's wrong.



I wasn't. Again, I never claimed Cronenberg didn't have a signature style.


Do you agree with Cronenberg's assesment of Tarantino? Because you sure seem to have something against him. Again, I dont' have anything against Cronenberg. Just happen to disagree with what he said about Tarantino.

I'm starting to feel the same way about your responses. "how great Tarantino is and how much you need to reassure yourself of that fact" Yeah. -confused- Tarantino is pretty adept at promoting himself. .


I gave examples of why Tarantino's style is the topic of discussion amongst mainstream audiences moreso than Cronenberg. His popularity is the very reason he is on the minds of so many people. Instead you want to compare the merits of each of their talents. That was exactly what I wanted to avoid because I have no interest in doing so. I'm not interested in discussing that in a public forum and trying to prove who is the better director or whatever. People can decide for themselves who the better director is.

Are you actually reading my posts or picking and choosing what you want to see?

Very wordy response to my own response. I got a headache just reading them.

I wouldn't be jealous if my movies didn't suck like Quentin's. :D

Pulp Fiction was great. The rest.. not so much. I walked out of Kill Bill 1, and will never see KB2, or another Tarantino movie. Ever. You can feel his love for himself and his insanity drip off the screen. :p

The way I look at this is....one guy I've never heard of (Cronenberg) is dissing a guy whose movies aren't all that appealing to me (Tarantino). Kind of like Britney talking trash about Aguilera - who cares?? Not too big of an issue with me. I still can't see why everybody loves Pulp Fiction, although I hear it all the time because I love Fifth Element.

That's sure not what I see you saying here:

I see nothing there about the level to which said styles are apparent to mainstream audiences. You're certainly allowed to qualify and revise things you've previously said, but to only do so long after you went off on a weird tangent unrelated to my posts is a bit odd.

"You guys"? I'm not from Canada.

Then you only insult yourself. The bulk of Cronenberg's films have been produced in Canada, and the relevant initial mainstream audience for his films has been in that country. That you wish to discuss mainstream audience reaction, but are "not interested in an education" as to how that process actually involves a director's country of origin is a bit much. You're obviously only interested in those limited things you already know. You're nothing interested in an education on things which you do not know. Quite an impressive thirst for knowledge.

The idea that you want to discuss mainstream reaction to Cronenberg, but are not interested in Canadian reaction is preposterous.

That's very nice. It also still had nothing to do with what I had posted. So you were rude to me concerning something I never said. Bravo.

Please show me where it is apparent that I "have something against" Tarantino. If taking one of his fans to task for posting nonsense counts as having something against a director, then I suppose I do. That would be the oddest definition of having something against a person that I have ever come across, though.

And yet here you are, praising away, even though it had nothing to do with the post you were replying to. You chose to defend Tarantino where he had never actually been attacked. The sort of hyper-defensiveness proves exactly what I have now been saying since your posts have gone into off-topic la la land. That you're confused by this indicates only that you don't even realize what you're doing.

Well, good for you. Sadly, however, this had nothing to do with the post of mine to which you responded.

No, I don't. I never said or implied anything remotely of the sort. You're just inventing stuff at this point. Enough already.

I read them all, and saw that despite they contained quotes from me, they were not actually responsive to my post. And, once again, you have done nothing to prove me wrong.

Yes, reading posts containing meaningful words that are actually responsive to the prior post can be difficult. You're probably not interested in an education on how to have a discussion, anyway.

DJ

gimme a break! what movie nowadays isn't a rehash of older movies? (that is when they were new, creative, and good, so why not borrow?)

tarantino has made a lot that has never been seen before. he has his own style and grace and to say they are "re-makes" is boldly unjust and without merit.

plus, any one of his masterpieces has made more than Cronenberg's combined. i know that isn't the litmus test, but to "slag" a director he probably never met once and basically call him a hack is ridiculous.

they are both extremely entertaining in vastly different ways!

-rolleyes-

Total US domestic theatrical grosses:
Reservoir Dogs: $2,832,029
Jackie Brown: $39,673,162
The Fly (1986): $40,456,565

It has absolutely no bearing on the discussion and it says much that you resort to mentioning it, but if you're going to do it, at least get it remotely right.

DJ