|
Originally Posted by Severian
You may be right. However, it seems to me that Tarantino suffered a bit more than people are choosing to admit after the release of Jackie Brown.
Yes, Pulp Fiction was his breakthrough, but he was still very much an outsider in Hollywood. PF getting an Oscar Nod was kind of a shocker, because at the time, the Beat Picture category was still pretty closed off to independent films (except for the token "disturbing to the point of being unwatchable" films like Wild at Heart, 9 1/2 Weeks, etc. which helped the academy feel in touch with the gen x crowd, I guess). Pulp Fiction was a serious contender, and that was unexpected.
So he had this incredible buzz going after Reservpir Dogs, and he followed it up with an even better film that was like the fucking Nevermind of movies. Then, with everyone watching, he released a very solid film that, despite standing the test of time very well, kind of left the world in a collective "WTF" state, and failed to break down any barriers, or revolutionize film-making or blah blah blah....
I remember watching the film and thinking that it was a damn fine genre ode to noir and blaxploitation, but that its irony was too subtle, and its charm too easy to miss. Audiences were expecting him to make another game changer. What did they get? A love story with two forgettable lead characters and none of the bravado of PF. For a while there, some thought he was a flash in the pan.
How do you top Pulp Fiction? I don't even think Tarantino understood why it was successful! When he realized that people want style SO much more than substance, he responded with a hyperstylized throwback epic, defined by its homage to genre (pretty much EVERY genre) and its record breaking amount of gratuitous violence. What happened? "Tarantino's Back!!"
So I really think he's had to pay his dues twice over. He won over movie goers with Kill Bill. Then, he had to win over the critics and the film school douchebags again, and he did so in a huge way with Inglorious Basterds.
NOW he can do what he wants, and make Hollywood his bitch. Django was up for all kinds of awards, despite some mixed reviews and a fair amount of criticism.
Basically, I guess all I mean is, what about the years between PF and Kill Bill, when he was "executive producing" mediocre horror films, and generally acting like a bit of a ninny and a hermit? Pulp Fiction made movies better. Without it, I don't think Fargo would have turned the Cohen brothers into the most respected filmmakers in the world. It made it possible for little films to become massive hits, but it made things easier for the rest of the world. For him, shit- it probably made things pretty goddamn tough.
For the record, I think Kill Bill is brilliant. It's like some kind of social experiment, and for being a marriage of the Oscar Epic and the senseless bloodbath that puts asses in the seats, I think it's a tremendous film, and a hilarious concept, with some surprisingly powerful moments and two or three unforgettable performances.
RE: Django's excessive violence- I honestly havent thought much about it. Now that I think about it, I did have a hard time with the "Mandingo" scene, the dogs (do I need to be any more specific?), and the "pit" scene, short as it was.
Great movie, but I would have enjoyed seeing Jamie Foxx do a little bit mkre acting. His delivery was excellent, but I didn't see much personality in Django. Maybe this was intentional. Especially given the film's other main performances.
Something about his performance reminded me of Vincent Vega. That's fucked, right? Surely no one else felt that way. (?)
|