Modern Hollywood's Iconic Directors: Episode Six.
By Joe Boden
28th January 2010

QUENTIN TARANTINO: A SELF-MADE REPUTATION

Back in 1992, Quentin Tarantino exploded onto the scene with his acclaimed debut “Reservoir Dogs”. The plot followed a group of criminals, each coded by a colour, as they plan, plot, and commit a bank robbery. The film unfolds over a series of flashbacks, with the criminals hiding out in an abandoned warehouse, accusing each other of being the rat who told the police about the crime. I’m sure you already know all of this. “Reservoir Dogs” has since become one of the most acclaimed, revered, and popular thrillers – if not films – of the last twenty years, and Tarantino’s own rise to fame was just as astronomical. Nowadays, he is regarded as one of the few American auteurs working today, and his films – usually released at a leisurely pace – are some of the most anticipated of their respective years. There is probably only a handful of directors who are more famous than he amongst the general public, with Scorsese, Spielberg, and Lucas being the obvious examples. Over just seven films, Quentin Tarantino has become one of the most instantly recognized names in the history of film.

But is it deserved? Well, anybody who has heard me speak about Quentin Tarantino will know my answer to that. It’s no, in case you don’t.  Tarantino has been on a steady downward trajectory for almost twenty years, with a few anomalies on an otherwise smooth downward path. And so I almost left QT out of this little series, which is discussing a few of the names that fall under the banner of modern day iconic Hollywood directors, for a few reasons. Firstly, I don’t actually regard him that highly. Secondly, Rob Stevens wrote a column about Tarantino quite recently, which pretty much makes it a pointless exercise for me to do so. Thirdly and finally, so much has been said about Tarantino that there’s little chance of me saying anything original at all. But then, I thought, why not? Tarantino is the very definition of a modern day iconic Hollywood director. His status, deserved or not, has superseded the Andersons and the Burtons of the world in just a few features, and so leaving him out would really be quite silly.

“Reservoir Dogs” is the film that formed the basis of this reputation. It is a spy thriller with a twist, unfolding itself like a puzzle until, finally, we know all of the facts and we can at last begin to piece together our conclusions. It is a film that, by its very nature, gets better with re-watches. Now that you know all of the facts, you can pick up on the little details, the little character nuances, that are the making of that iconic final showdown. It’s a cleverly constructed film which has been painstakingly put together, leaving not so much clues but warnings, embroiling you in both inner and outer conflict from the very first minute. A conversation about everything from Madonna to tipping may seem like trademark superfluous Tarantino, but it’s not; it sets up the dynamic between the group and the individual characters. From there, hardly anything seems out of place, with the film flitting between characters with the greatest of ease, building a handful of characters better than Tarantino would ever manage again in his career.

There are a few minor flaws within this excellent debut that are, for the most part, of no fault of Tarantino. A few performances are a little bit over the top, with the hamminess intruding here and there, and a lot of it seems kind of dated here and there. However, it is nowhere near as flawed as his follow-up film, “Pulp Fiction”, a film that has a reputation that dwarves “Reservoir Dogs”’s own, making the debut seem insignificant in comparison. The 1995 film, which won the Palme d’Or over Kieslowski’s “Three Colours: Red”, is a horribly overrated picture that lives on gimmickry and trickery more than actual quality. There are flaws in each of the individual segments, and the fact that it is told in an un-chronological adds nothing to anything. It’s just, yet again, another gimmick, and I can’t see the film being better or worse if it were re-edited to being in chronological order.

And that’s the difference between Tarantino’s freshman and sophomore pictures. Whilst “Reservoir Dogs” used a complex and innovative storytelling technique to enhance tension and character development, I honestly don’t see the point of “Pulp Fiction” and its chronology mix-ups. To show off? To make us realize just how clever Mr Tarantino is? I’m afraid it doesn’t do any of that, and after the novelty has worn off by the third or fourth viewing, it is more of a distraction than a helping hand.

"Jackie Brown": Tarantino's finest?

Tarantino’s third film, however, is certainly a step up in terms of quality. “Jackie Brown” is a mature, deliberated, and truly intelligent crime thriller that slow burns rather than explodes. It’s a film with a plethora of finely handled performances, from Robert De Niro (possibly his last great one), Samuel L Jackson (possibly his best), Michael Keaton, Pam Grier, and Robert Forster. It’s a film that has very little trickery at all, and when Tarantino does finally return to the gimmickry that made him famous in a superbly constructed and exquisitely delivered repeated viewpoint sequence, it has all the more impact for it. These aren’t pointless little tricks like Uma Thurman drawing a square on our screen, these are genuine storytelling techniques that enhance the experience for one, two, three, or however many viewings.

It’s kind of annoying that “Jackie Brown” is thought of how it is. Back at the time, there was an instant backlash from both the critics and the public because it wasn’t as instantly likeable as “Pulp Fiction” or “Reservoir Dogs”. It wasn’t playful or inventive enough, and as a result it is seen as the lesser of QT’s first three classics. Nowadays, critical opinion has risen considerably, but many – including Tarantino himself – now think of it as a copout when it comes to picking a favourite QT film. He sees it as a slight on him that someone should prefer a film that goes so far against the key hallmarks of his work. But, by these arguments alone, it is perfectly logical for “Jackie Brown” to be the favourite of many Tarantino detractors. If I don’t particularly appreciate the director’s endless homaging, endless gimmicks, and endless trickery, surely it is perfectly logical for me to enjoy the film with the least of all three of those things the most? I think so.

Next came “Kill Bill”, a two-parter that saw Uma Thurman playing the unnamed Bride, who was attacked by her former mentor Bill and his band of assassins on her wedding day, which put her in a coma for the subsequent years. However, she’s woken from her long slumber, and now she’ll do anything for revenge. There are a handful of things I like about “Kill Bill”; the well formed characters, the superb anime sequence, and the strong female lead character. But it suffers simply because it was gutted by the studio executives. The film was split into two parts against Tarantino’s will, and – as a result – both parts are weakened when you discuss them as individual films. The first film does okay out of the bargain, but it ends abruptly with both the story and the character arcs incomplete, and as a result the pacing is upset considerably and the experience becomes weak and unfulfilling. The second film, though, is the one which truly suffers.

“Kill Bill Volume Two” is a poor experience by any definition of the word. It comes without a real memorable set piece, and – for an action film – the thing feels languid and almost turgid as a result. The fight against the Crazy 8, the story of O-Ren, and the opening battle between Thurman and Vivicia A Fox have all come and gone, and all that is left is a lot of poorly developed philosophizing and secondary action. Daryl Hannah’s Elle Driver was well developed in the first film, but the break between the two means that all of the tension and character building is basically for nothing. It’s worthy of note that not much of this is Tarantino’s fault, but even as a singular experience, the “Kill Bill” films couldn’t really recreate the mature and intelligent “Jackie Brown”. Nor, though, do they want to; they are fun little action films, but – unfortunately – even that element is gutted by the money milking executives.

"Death Proof": Tarantino's worst?

It would take three years for Tarantino to re-group and come back with his next film. Teaming up with Robert Rodriguez – regarded by many as a poor man’s Tarantino anyway – to create “Grindhouse”, a supposed cinematic experience. Rodriguez directed “Planet Terror”, whilst Tarantino delivered “Death Proof”. The lengthened form of this, Tarantino’s sixth picture, is all I have seen, and so these comments are directed towards that rather than the “Grindhouse” experience. Needless to say, it is probably Tarantino’s very worst film; boring, overlong, repetitive, unnecessary, pointless, empty, and unengaging. It manages to waste Kurt Russell, which is pretty much a mortal sin in itself, and goes for cheap thrills and silly dialogue rather than, well, story and character. The acting is poor, particularly from the painfully bad Zoe Bell, and the whole thing just feels like a self-indulgent waste. It’s this film, more than any other, that makes me dislike Tarantino more than any other. Not only does it show his inconsistencies, but also his insecurities as a filmmaker, and his need to mask shortcomings in story and character with heavy handed adrenaline and pointless, no-longer-funny dialogue.

“Inglourious Basterds” was possibly the most anticipated film of 2007. Tarantino has been working on it for years, and – when it came – it reached a mixed reaction. If you take a look at my review in either the ‘Reviews’ or ‘Latest Releases’ sections of this website, you will see that I gave it partly positive reviews. At the time, I liked it, but on a re-watch I liked it less so. It’s a film that can be entertaining every now and again, and – by using flashy trickery and in-your-face gimmickry – manages to overcome any shortcomings on first viewing. However, the more I think about the film, the less I like it. The main reason is one that you will have doubtlessly have heard before, in that it trivializes World War II. In this film, more war crimes are committed by Americans than by Germans, and as a result it kind of cheapens what so many people must have been going through seventy years ago. As a result, the film made me feel dirty simply for watching it, and that’s not particularly a film that I want to watch.

There are other reasons, too; the supporting performances are mostly weak with the obvious exception of Christopher Waltz, it’s a structural nightmare, and it references many films that are, for all intents and purposes, Basterds’ superior. For some reason, Tarantino’s latest is somewhat well regarded, and it is doing well at countless awards ceremonies. It looks a dead cert to be nominated for the Best Picture award at the Oscars, and the constant, seemingly eternal praise that it is getting right now only puts me off further.

Tarantino is a director who I will probably never get along with again. He is a man who trades almost solely off his reputation and a few good films he made more than a decade ago. Ask yourself, if “Kill Bill, Vol. One” has been Tarantino’s first film, and since then he made “Volume Two”, “Death Proof”, and “Inglourious Basterds”, would he have even half the reputation that he currently does? I don’t think so. In fact, I dare say that even the Basterds apologists – those who claim that it is a meditated appraisal of propaganda and reputation or an examination into the nature of war and violence – would have a different opinion on that film, and on the director’s résumé as a whole.

What the man will do in the future will be met with the same wide-eyed hype (or, rather, hope) as every one of his projects since “Jackie Brown” but, until he finally makes true on his initial promise, I very much doubt that QT will make a film as good as “Jackie Brown” again, and his smug, self-important attitude is built upon hype and reputation rather than filmmaking ability.