A question of ego

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 17, 2009 6:55 PM GMT
    I just read this piece about Quentin Tarantino.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/16/movies/16lim.html?hpw

    To be honest, I am a huge fan of his movies. However, reading this made me nauseous, like braiding the hair on Dick Cheney's back would make me nauseous.

    16lim_190.jpg

    QT modestly tells an interviewer -but while most of them were perfectly competent, “they didn’t get my poetry,” he said. “I literally had to consider I might have written an unplayable part."-

    Is ordenery hobris no longur good enouf?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 17, 2009 7:02 PM GMT
    UrsaMajor said, like braiding the hair on Dick Cheney's back would make me nauseous.

    LMAO I love that! Thanks, Ursa.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 17, 2009 7:09 PM GMT
    I don't see anything wrong with his statement. Tarantino created a character and he wanted the right actor to portray the character as he envisioned. I'm sure this is the case for other writers/directors.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 17, 2009 8:46 PM GMT
    Oh poppycock. In the movies, everyone blames everyone else.
  • EricLA

    Posts: 3461

    Aug 17, 2009 9:34 PM GMT
    Sedative saidOh poppycock. In the movies, everyone blames everyone else.


    Sedative said poppycock.

    As for the post, of course Tarantino has heaps and heaps of ego. Is that a surprise?

    And Sedative is quite correct, Hollywood is great at passing the blame.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 17, 2009 9:49 PM GMT
    Uh what blame are we talking about? I didn't say anything about blame. I just said this sounds inflated even for Q.T. Mind you, the movie looks great and Christoph Walz looks amazing.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 17, 2009 10:27 PM GMT
    LOL Terry, I was saying poppycock AT Tarantino... and I've always wanted to say 'poppycock'. Now I just need to find a situation for 'crikey'. icon_wink.gif

    P.S. It's caramel popcorn? icon_neutral.gif No thanks, I hate those things. *hugs cookies*
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 18, 2009 1:48 AM GMT
    Sedative saidLOL Terry, I was saying poppycock AT Tarantino... and I've always wanted to say 'poppycock'. Now I just need to find a situation for 'crikey'. icon_wink.gif

    P.S. It's caramel popcorn? icon_neutral.gif No thanks, I hate those things. *hugs cookies*


    I am scampering off to Whole Foods (yeah, I'm not boycotting. suck it bitches) for a Carol's Cookie. http://www.carolscookies.com/ I'll soon be nibbling away at one and thinking "Gee, I am eating one of the best cookies ever created and Eric is not". icon_biggrin.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 18, 2009 2:31 AM GMT
    jprichva saidGood thing Pauline Kael is no longer around...
    You eggheads always make me come in my pants.
  • calibro

    Posts: 8888

    Aug 18, 2009 3:17 AM GMT
    Actually, I didn't find it egotistical at all. He wasn't saying he was a brilliant writer unlike any other person. Rather, in the context, he said he created a very specific character that he wasn't sure an actor could properly play. I think it's akin to Ledger's role in The Dark Knight. I cannot fathom how he managed to nail the Joker as well as he did, and I cannot even consider another actor doing the same justice.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 18, 2009 3:35 AM GMT
    calibro saidActually, I didn't find it egotistical at all. He wasn't saying he was a brilliant writer unlike any other person. Rather, in the context, he said he created a very specific character that he wasn't sure an actor could properly play. I think it's akin to Ledger's role in The Dark Knight. I cannot fathom how he managed to nail the Joker as well as he did, and I cannot even consider another actor doing the same justice.


    I don't see it as egotistical either. It could be the same way in design. You design something and make it, but it always breaks. That would be poor design or poor material choice.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 18, 2009 3:53 AM GMT
    . . . Tarantino is not a writer; he's a symptom . .
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 18, 2009 4:04 AM GMT
    Sedative saidLOL Terry, I was saying poppycock AT Tarantino... and I've always wanted to say 'poppycock'. Now I just need to find a situation for 'crikey'. icon_wink.gif

    P.S. It's caramel popcorn? icon_neutral.gif No thanks, I hate those things. *hugs cookies*


    I'm sure you've asked for some poppy's cock more than once.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 18, 2009 10:52 AM GMT
    LGWC said

    I don't see it as egotistical either. It could be the same way in design. You design something and make it, but it always breaks. That would be poor design or poor material choice.


    Sorry, but I don't recognize the equivalence. A role that requires an actor to persuasively perform in three languages may not be easy to fill circa 2009, but it certainly is not impossible (evidence that it was filled).

    The analogy in design would be an object that would have properties allowing it to function well in (for example) extreme temperature and humidity variations. Such a brief requires the correct material(s) to be found.

    My point was entirely different. Quentin Tarantino is a writer/director. What he wrote was a part in a movie. Maybe it is the best movie ever conceived by the mind of man. However, it is still a movie.

    This is the first time I ever recall hearing a screenwriter refer to their product as "my poetry". A less self-aggrandizing way of putting it might have been my dialog, or even my stuff. Also, this business of having to consider the possibility the part is unplayable. In context, the Bard of Cahuenga Blvd. is telling us that he has written something so compelling and genial that no mere actor can play the part.

    David Mamet doesn't go around saying stuff like that, and neither did Joseph Mankiewicz, Dalton Trumbo, or anyone else I can think of. Since Q.T. is actually a monumentally-great screenwriter and innovator, why the need to make himself look like a fart-sniffing dork?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 18, 2009 11:20 AM GMT
    I thought poppycock was grandpa's penis.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 18, 2009 11:26 AM GMT
    UrsaMajor saidSorry, but I don't recognize the equivalence. A role that requires an actor to persuasively perform in three languages may not be easy to fill circa 2009, but it certainly is not impossible (evidence that it was filled).

    The analogy in design would be an object that would have properties allowing it to function well in (for example) extreme temperature and humidity variations. Such a brief requires the correct material(s) to be found.

    My point was entirely different. Quentin Tarantino is a writer/director. What he wrote was a part in a movie. Maybe it is the best movie ever conceived by the mind of man. However, it is still a movie.

    This is the first time I ever recall hearing a screenwriter refer to their product as "my poetry". A less self-aggrandizing way of putting it might have been my dialog, or even my stuff. Also, this business of having to consider the possibility the part is unplayable. In context, the Bard of Cahuenga Blvd. is telling us that he has written something so compelling and genial that no mere actor can play the part.

    David Mamet doesn't go around saying stuff like that, and neither did Joseph Mankiewicz, Dalton Trumbo, or anyone else I can think of. Since Q.T. is actually a monumentally-great screenwriter and innovator, why the need to make himself look like a fart-sniffing dork?

    While you point is in a way valid, I do think you might be over thinking all this.

    On a related although different note, I love the word flabbergast..
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 18, 2009 11:28 AM GMT
    Flabbergast

    I walked into a room full of flatulent overweight men. I was flabbergassed!
  • Timbales

    Posts: 13993

    Aug 18, 2009 1:30 PM GMT
    he's no Kanye
  • calibro

    Posts: 8888

    Aug 18, 2009 10:19 PM GMT
    UrsaMajor said
    LGWC said

    I don't see it as egotistical either. It could be the same way in design. You design something and make it, but it always breaks. That would be poor design or poor material choice.


    Sorry, but I don't recognize the equivalence. A role that requires an actor to persuasively perform in three languages may not be easy to fill circa 2009, but it certainly is not impossible (evidence that it was filled).

    The analogy in design would be an object that would have properties allowing it to function well in (for example) extreme temperature and humidity variations. Such a brief requires the correct material(s) to be found.

    My point was entirely different. Quentin Tarantino is a writer/director. What he wrote was a part in a movie. Maybe it is the best movie ever conceived by the mind of man. However, it is still a movie.

    This is the first time I ever recall hearing a screenwriter refer to their product as "my poetry". A less self-aggrandizing way of putting it might have been my dialog, or even my stuff. Also, this business of having to consider the possibility the part is unplayable. In context, the Bard of Cahuenga Blvd. is telling us that he has written something so compelling and genial that no mere actor can play the part.

    David Mamet doesn't go around saying stuff like that, and neither did Joseph Mankiewicz, Dalton Trumbo, or anyone else I can think of. Since Q.T. is actually a monumentally-great screenwriter and innovator, why the need to make himself look like a fart-sniffing dork?


    Actually, you're still missing the entire point. Tarantino mentions he auditioned actors who could speak all three languages (that wasn't the crux of the search), but that it required more. He simply couldn't find an actor to embody the character as a whole. Again, Ledger as the Joker. It wasn't just a voice or a look, it was the entire embodiment of that character. Tarantino had a vision for this very nuanced character and didn't find anyone who could properly portray that for the longest time.

    Second, do you have any background in screenwriting? If you did, you would immediately pick up on the fact that this is a five-chapter screenplay, basically unheard of. This is his poetry because he is breaking the form of a screenplay.

    And you compare Mamet to Tarantino? Mamet is a cliche hack who is the predecessor to M. Night Shaymalan who somehow got lucky when the gods gave him Glengarry Glen Ross. I do think he is a cocky bastard, but he is rightfully so as he earned it and continues to earn it.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 18, 2009 11:02 PM GMT
    calibro said

    "Actually, you're still missing the entire point. Tarantino mentions he auditioned actors who could speak all three languages (that wasn't the crux of the search), but that it required more. He simply couldn't find an actor to embody the character as a whole. Again, Ledger as the Joker. It wasn't just a voice or a look, it was the entire embodiment of that character. Tarantino had a vision for this very nuanced character and didn't find anyone who could properly portray that for the longest time."

    Well, he did find an actor who could speak three languages and embody the character, actually possess the character. I've seen the film and it is a slam dunk, maybe one of the best performances of all time.

    "Second, do you have any background in screenwriting? If you did, you would immediately pick up on the fact that this is a five-chapter screenplay, basically unheard of. This is his poetry because he is breaking the form of a screenplay."

    No, I have no background in screenwriting, have never seen a screen play, have no formal education, don't clip my toenails as often as I should, suffer from acid reflux, and am irritated by egotists. Thus, it must follow that I necessarily missed the fact that the screenplay is in 5 acts (in my ignorance I believe them to be called acts and not chapters). ?yrteop sa etar ti soed sdrawkab ecnetnes siht epyt I fI Breaking the three-act form is cool and it serves a purpose in this case; giving us nonlinear narrative in the first place will remain a solitary contribution, and this man's claim to genius.

    "And you compare Mamet to Tarantino? Mamet is a cliche hack who is the predecessor to M. Night Shaymalan who somehow got lucky when the gods gave him Glengarry Glen Ross. I do think he is a cocky bastard, but he is rightfully so as he earned it and continues to earn it."

    No one, least of all me, questioned Quentin Tarantino's ability as a screenwriter. Neither does his ability lessen that of anyone else. I merely gave two examples of notable screenwriters who do not exhibit the sort of derailed egoism that is on display in the article to which I was referring. Thus, I am not going to debate the relative merits of screenwriters (especially since I am an ignorant dipshit).

    The thesis Quentin Tarantino is a great writer and a great director who is an obvious egomaniac didn't seem so controversial to me. However, lacking the necessary background to satisfy your baseline requirements for possession of an opinion, I certainly must be wrong.