I agree with the "master" in this headline, but not the
"parody." Parody implies that he is making fun of his source
material, which he is most certainly not. In fact, if he has
any fault, it's that he loves all movies, good and bad,
equally. Instead, Tarantino is the master of pastiche. He
sifts through for the "good bits" from various movies (and
books), some well known, others very obscure, and chops and
channels them into new movies. Movies that for the most part
improve upon much of the trashy source material.
True, his movies are not as deep since the end of his
collaboration with Roger Avary (I can't see how people can
miss the depth of Pulp Fiction with its characters' various
opportunities for redemption and second chances and the
consequences of their engaging them or ignoring them), but,
as Amy pointed out so well, they're a hell of a lot of fun.
There are few movies I've watched as many times as Kill Bill
Vols. 1 & 2 and I am very much looking forward to the
four disc set of Kill Bill: The Whole Bloody Affair, which
recuts it as one film (scheduled for November). That film
also turned me on to much of his source material and I have
become a huge fan of samurai films (among other genres he
drew from).
(Death Proof may not be up to his other directed work --
particularly when heard in excerpts, as on the soundtrack CD,
soudn like QT parodying himself -- but the car scenes were
way cool, and it was still a lot of fun in its trashiness.
Not so much fun seeing him act.)
As for his influence on noir writing, I think it has been
pretty huge. Tarantino opened up a market, leading to the
release of many of the films that influenced him (he is
directly responsible for the dozens of samurai films that
have come out here in the past few years, for the better
treatment of kung fu films -- Dragon Dynasty, for instance,
would not exist if not for him) and numerous new crime films
that have tried to emulate his success. Yes, many if not most
of them have been mediocre at best, but it has also brought
us films like Brick, Kiss Kiss Bang Bang and Unknown, to name
just a few from the last year. I am most certainly not
calling the makers of these last films Tarantino imitators,
just saying these films probably would not have been made if
Tarantino had not primed the pump.
And the same goes for noir fiction. I've seen "In the
tradition of Pulp Fiction" on a number of covers, and I bet
it moves more books today than
"In the tradition of Chandler and Hammet" would/does. I would
be really surprised if Charlie Huston, for instance, was not
a Tarantino fan, find it hard to believe his work his work
would be made the way it is and found so easily in bookstores
if Tarantino had not paved the way. Al Guthrie is a fan of
Tarantino's. And would there be a Hard Case Crime series,
with its covers sharing the aesthetic of the Pulp Fiction
poster, without Tarantino? (Would there Charles?)
Mark
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 05 Jul 2007 EDT