slop101

"I don't think that what I'm doing is the same as what he's doing, because I think his movies are only about movies. They're only about other movies; it's all retro, his references are never to human life, but to human life filtered through old movies. He's basically always doing remakes and pastiches of old movies - but I saw those '70s movies when they came out and they were bad then. Why do you want to do a remake of a bad '70s movie? I don't see that remaking it makes it good somehow, but what it does do is make it kind of 'post-modernist' in that it's always referring to another era and it's retro and there's always quote around everything and everything's ironic and we're always nudging and winking."

I love Tarantino's movies, but I think Cronenberg is right on the money. Though I do think Cronenberg is the more interesting filmmaker, Tarantino is far more entertaining.

discuss

Crocker Jarmen

What is the source of this quote?

Terrell

Other than Pulp Fiction, I can't stand Tarantino's movies. But Cronenberg is right on the money.

The Antipodean

I like both of them, but I have to agree with Cronenberg on this one.

slop101

sorry
http://dvd.ign.com/articles/655/655529p1.html

Coral

Although I'm not the biggest Cronenberg fan (even though he's Canadian)... he's spot-on with that comment.

That's always been my problem with Tarantino.

Count Dooku

slop101

Obviously by "remake" he means that QT is remaking and copying those movies' style. Cronenberg's style for his Fly remake might have the same general story, but everything about it is different, and he doesn't copy a single thing.

Count Dooku

But in the quote, Cronenberg says "I don't see that remaking it makes it good somehow"

My point with The Fly was that remaking it doesn't make it good, but that you can make a good remake, and that you can even remake something that was crappy and have the new version be great.

Who cares what the source material is, or what the perceived quality of the source material is, if the resulting product is great (which I think QT's movies are).

As for the stuff about QT's work being all post-moderny, that's a fair and accurate point to make, but I don't see how that is automatically a bad thing.

Andy Warhol's soup cans and silk screens are considered post-modern art and are also hailed as great works of art.

If QT's movies are only about movies, then they aren't about nothing, they are about our culture. WTF is Crash about?

IanH

Tarantino's movies are more than simply an homage or a remake of blaxpoitation, kung fu grind house, or French New Wave. Just because he takes elements from different styles doesn't necessarily mean its just a copy. Jackie Brown is a much more polished and professionally made film than the blaxpoitation movies he admires. As if blaxpoitation movies of the 70's had bigger budgets, better actors, a better editor, and a better director. And thats not even a fair assesment because the movie was so heavily character driven and it was more about a study of those characters. Same with Kill Bill. Kill Bill wasn't just a grind house movie it had so many other elements within it that its hard to classify. There's a visceral thrill that blaxpoitation/grind house/John Woo movies provide that traditional movies feared to tread and Tarantino brought that those elements into the mainstream in obvious and not so obvious ways. Not only does he take inspiration from different styles (like most directors) he also injects his own look and feel to it which is difficult to do or even explain. Lets not forget the way Tarantino also uses characters and uses dialog in ways we haven't seen before.

Movie making isn't simply about bringing elements together. Then everyone would truly be successful at it. Its how they take these elements and somehow makes them work in new ways.

IMO, Cronenberg is just jealous his movies dont' have as strong a signature look and feel as Tarantino's. Its too bad he has to slag Tarantino like that. Tarantino I believe admires Cronenberg's movies.

onebyone

They are 2 of my favorite directors, with Cronenberg being my favorite. I don't like hearing about my favorites slagging each other. Not at all.

Oh brother.

Count Dooku

One thing they can agree on, they both like

IanH

Its an opinion. Relax. I'm not writing for Cahiers Du Cinema or Film Comment.

natevines

Cronenberg ain't the greatest, but I agree that he's dead on.

DVD King

I think cronenberg's comment should have been "I don't see that referencing other movies make it good somehow"-- that would make sense. He's not calling him a bad director, it's just that tarantino seems to be so caught up with other films that he can't see his stories and characters as being anything other than elements of a movie. His films have kind of a superficiality running through them, in my opinion.

I highly doubt cronenberg would want a "strong signature look and feel" in his films.

I'm wondering how "tarantinoesque" even entered a conversation with cronenberg.

belboz

My main beef with Tarantino is that he's gotten too self indulgent.

As for Cronenberg being jealous of not having a distinctive style, I can't believe anyone who's seen more than a few of his movies could make that comment.

IanH

Fact is neither of us really knows.

PopcornTreeCt

I feel Tarantino's films are more inline with humanity moreso than Cronenberg. Cronenberg, to me, seems more interested in showing off his dazzling make up and visual effects than telling a story.

mookyman

I love both directors, but I'd say that Cronenberg almost gets it right about Tarantino. I think that the whole reason QT returns to 70's genre influences so often is that, to him, there is a humanity and truth to be found in schlock.

Terrell

Well, considering Cronenberg is the superior filmmaker, I doubt that's true.

No disrespect, but that's a load. History of Violence is better than anything Tarantino's done, except for may Pulp Fiction.

Jon2

Seen movies by both and can't say I'm that impressed by either.

Cronenberg has a cult following, whereas Tarantino (although he too has a cult following) is simply popular. For the time being, at any rate. Popularity tends to fade after a while.

caiman

Tarantino still makes better movies.

djtoell

The idea that Cronenberg lacks strong signature elements to his films is rather laughable, with all due respect. There is much to be mined within his films on an individual basis, and much to be found by putting together the pieces of the larger picture. It would be futile for me to attempt to summarize any such thing here, as it has already been done far more extensively and eloquently a few times over by others. Suffice it to say that a claim of a lack of a strong signature directorial presence throughout Cronenberg's body of work (even if we were to find that some individual films in particular are lacking in certain respects) wouldn't withstand even a cursory review of his oeuvre.

DJ

PopcornTreeCt

While I may agree with you, I've yet to see History of Violence. I think it is pointless to argue between Tarantino and Cronenberg. And I think Cronenberg's criticism is more directed at QT the man instead of his movies. Quentin Tarantino has the ego of a young Godard but nowhere near the talent to back it up.

Tyler_Durden

Nevertheless, Tarantino's '70s pastiches are mostly better films than the originals.